Hi Thomas, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) writes: > > > there was a big discussion in the recent IETF meeting > (don't remember > > which one) and the consensus was to drop "you can omit DAD for > > addresses with same IID" part from the DAD, IIRC (need to check > > minutes). if my memory is corret, my guess is that the node > > requirement is more up-to-date on this issue. > > I too seem to recall a discussion or two on this topic, even before > vienna. But > > 1) should node-requirements be the document that updates this, or > should addrconf be updated? > > 2) If the former, the words in the current document aren't explicit > enough. Especially given the following wording in > node-requirements: > > > This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and > > references RFCs for this purpose. In case of any conflicting > > text, this document takes less precedence than the normative > > RFCs, unless additional clarifying text is included in this > > document.
My understanding was that we didn't want the Node Requirements document be the bucket where we toss all of the fixes needed to various RFCs, etc. I assume that if addrconf needs updating, it should be done there, however, I could put a note in the Node Req document. I'm not dogmatic, however, about this point - if people feel that Node Req is the right place, then feel free to suggest text. thanks, John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
